niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: As in the English language, names used to describe a person or a group of persons have mutated into their last name, similar to those whose last name is a profession. In Colombia, the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country, and so far it hasn't spread much around the country. If you find a Lucumi in Colombia, he most certainly will be from that part of the country. So, being used to be called Lucumi during their slavery, and being proud of that, after slavery ended and got the right to have a last name like the rest of the citizens, they pick one they could relate to.  <sep>  Q: Explanation of "Lucumi"? A: In Colombia, the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country  Q: Any other explanations? A: being used to be called Lucumi during their slavery, and being proud of that, after slavery ended and got the right to have a last name like the rest of the citizens  Q: Where do Lucimi people live? A: the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country  Q: Anything else you can tell me about Lucumi? A: If you find a Lucumi in Colombia, he most certainly will be from that part of the country  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it a famliy name?
Output: No
CONTEXT: As in the English language, names used to describe a person or a group of persons have mutated into their last name, similar to those whose last name is a profession. In Colombia, the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country, and so far it hasn't spread much around the country. If you find a Lucumi in Colombia, he most certainly will be from that part of the country. So, being used to be called Lucumi during their slavery, and being proud of that, after slavery ended and got the right to have a last name like the rest of the citizens, they pick one they could relate to.  <sep>  Q: Explanation of "Lucumi"? A: In Colombia, the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country  Q: Any other explanations? A: being used to be called Lucumi during their slavery, and being proud of that, after slavery ended and got the right to have a last name like the rest of the citizens  Q: Where do Lucimi people live? A: the last name Lucumi is frequently found in case of persons born in the Pacific Coast of the country  Q: Anything else you can tell me about Lucumi? A: If you find a Lucumi in Colombia, he most certainly will be from that part of the country  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Any other important info about it?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I'm sure scenes like this have been shot differently in different movies, but I have noticed that mostly the shots are faked. One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary. The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air. Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer. The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement, so their bodies shift believably. This can be shot outdoors, with actual sky in the background, or in front of a green screen, where fake sky and terrain is put in afterwards, along with a CGI propeller and reflections on the glass windshield. Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards. In most cases, this would be more difficult and expensive.  <sep>  Q: How are helicopter scenes shot in TV/Film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm sure scenes like this have been shot differently in different movies, but I have noticed that mostly the shots are faked. One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary. The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air. Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer. The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement, so their bodies shift believably. This can be shot outdoors, with actual sky in the background, or in front of a green screen, where fake sky and terrain is put in afterwards, along with a CGI propeller and reflections on the glass windshield. Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards. In most cases, this would be more difficult and expensive.  <sep>  Q: How are helicopter scenes shot in TV/Film? A: One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How are scenes wherein the characters have a dialogue inside a helicopter as well as interact with the environment outside it, shot?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm sure scenes like this have been shot differently in different movies, but I have noticed that mostly the shots are faked. One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary. The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air. Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer. The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement, so their bodies shift believably. This can be shot outdoors, with actual sky in the background, or in front of a green screen, where fake sky and terrain is put in afterwards, along with a CGI propeller and reflections on the glass windshield. Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards. In most cases, this would be more difficult and expensive.  <sep>  Q: How are helicopter scenes shot in TV/Film? A: One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary  Q: How are scenes wherein the characters have a dialogue inside a helicopter as well as interact with the environment outside it, shot? A: The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do they use drones for this?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm sure scenes like this have been shot differently in different movies, but I have noticed that mostly the shots are faked. One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary. The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air. Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer. The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement, so their bodies shift believably. This can be shot outdoors, with actual sky in the background, or in front of a green screen, where fake sky and terrain is put in afterwards, along with a CGI propeller and reflections on the glass windshield. Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards. In most cases, this would be more difficult and expensive.  <sep>  Q: How are helicopter scenes shot in TV/Film? A: One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary  Q: How are scenes wherein the characters have a dialogue inside a helicopter as well as interact with the environment outside it, shot? A: The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air  Q: Do they use drones for this? A: Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does it show the ground?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm sure scenes like this have been shot differently in different movies, but I have noticed that mostly the shots are faked. One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary. The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air. Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer. The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement, so their bodies shift believably. This can be shot outdoors, with actual sky in the background, or in front of a green screen, where fake sky and terrain is put in afterwards, along with a CGI propeller and reflections on the glass windshield. Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards. In most cases, this would be more difficult and expensive.  <sep>  Q: How are helicopter scenes shot in TV/Film? A: One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary  Q: How are scenes wherein the characters have a dialogue inside a helicopter as well as interact with the environment outside it, shot? A: The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air  Q: Do they use drones for this? A: Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer  Q: Does it show the ground? A: The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is the dialogue shot separately on the ground and the rest of it shot midair with overhanging cameras?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm sure scenes like this have been shot differently in different movies, but I have noticed that mostly the shots are faked. One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary. The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air. Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer. The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement, so their bodies shift believably. This can be shot outdoors, with actual sky in the background, or in front of a green screen, where fake sky and terrain is put in afterwards, along with a CGI propeller and reflections on the glass windshield. Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards. In most cases, this would be more difficult and expensive.  <sep>  Q: How are helicopter scenes shot in TV/Film? A: One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary  Q: How are scenes wherein the characters have a dialogue inside a helicopter as well as interact with the environment outside it, shot? A: The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air  Q: Do they use drones for this? A: Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer  Q: Does it show the ground? A: The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement  Q: Is the dialogue shot separately on the ground and the rest of it shot midair with overhanging cameras? A: Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Any more you can tell me?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I'm sure scenes like this have been shot differently in different movies, but I have noticed that mostly the shots are faked. One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary. The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air. Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer. The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement, so their bodies shift believably. This can be shot outdoors, with actual sky in the background, or in front of a green screen, where fake sky and terrain is put in afterwards, along with a CGI propeller and reflections on the glass windshield. Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards. In most cases, this would be more difficult and expensive.  <sep>  Q: How are helicopter scenes shot in TV/Film? A: One option is to have the helicopter on the ground, with the engine off and the propellers stationary  Q: How are scenes wherein the characters have a dialogue inside a helicopter as well as interact with the environment outside it, shot? A: The actors are inside. The camera operator moves around outside the helicopter to make it look like it's up in the air  Q: Do they use drones for this? A: Often, the camera is tilted upwards, shooting the actors slightly from underneath, to give a sensation of them being above the camera / viewer  Q: Does it show the ground? A: The grounded helicopter may also be mounted on a moving platform to tip, raise and lower the helicopter to give the actors inside the actual sensation of movement  Q: Is the dialogue shot separately on the ground and the rest of it shot midair with overhanging cameras? A: Another approach would be to shoot the helicopter actually in flight, and overdub the actors' dialog afterwards  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is overdub?
Output: No
CONTEXT: In addition to Faizan's answer of giving them as sacrifices to be spared by the White Walkers, you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters, likely for his enjoyment (and less for theirs) and they were also doing all their work for him. So new daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him. And it is clear that Craster isn't really a man to shed tears for his dying kin. Rather on the contrary, a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters. Craster has conditioned his daughters into obedience to him (and even more so in a medieval world where women were even less likely to revolt against their patriarch, even if they actually would have been able to do so in unison). A son might be harder to keep "under control" and as said, wouldn't have any use for Craster, since he doesn't really need a fighter, due to his arrangement with the Crows. It would merely mean a disruptance to the nice little life he's built himself there. So I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep.  <sep>  Q: Why does Craster give those sacrifices to the White Walkers?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In addition to Faizan's answer of giving them as sacrifices to be spared by the White Walkers, you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters, likely for his enjoyment (and less for theirs) and they were also doing all their work for him. So new daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him. And it is clear that Craster isn't really a man to shed tears for his dying kin. Rather on the contrary, a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters. Craster has conditioned his daughters into obedience to him (and even more so in a medieval world where women were even less likely to revolt against their patriarch, even if they actually would have been able to do so in unison). A son might be harder to keep "under control" and as said, wouldn't have any use for Craster, since he doesn't really need a fighter, due to his arrangement with the Crows. It would merely mean a disruptance to the nice little life he's built himself there. So I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep.  <sep>  Q: Why does Craster give those sacrifices to the White Walkers? A: you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why are the newborn babies needed?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In addition to Faizan's answer of giving them as sacrifices to be spared by the White Walkers, you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters, likely for his enjoyment (and less for theirs) and they were also doing all their work for him. So new daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him. And it is clear that Craster isn't really a man to shed tears for his dying kin. Rather on the contrary, a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters. Craster has conditioned his daughters into obedience to him (and even more so in a medieval world where women were even less likely to revolt against their patriarch, even if they actually would have been able to do so in unison). A son might be harder to keep "under control" and as said, wouldn't have any use for Craster, since he doesn't really need a fighter, due to his arrangement with the Crows. It would merely mean a disruptance to the nice little life he's built himself there. So I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep.  <sep>  Q: Why does Craster give those sacrifices to the White Walkers? A: you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters  Q: Why are the newborn babies needed? A: ew daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there a benefit for Caster tho?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In addition to Faizan's answer of giving them as sacrifices to be spared by the White Walkers, you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters, likely for his enjoyment (and less for theirs) and they were also doing all their work for him. So new daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him. And it is clear that Craster isn't really a man to shed tears for his dying kin. Rather on the contrary, a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters. Craster has conditioned his daughters into obedience to him (and even more so in a medieval world where women were even less likely to revolt against their patriarch, even if they actually would have been able to do so in unison). A son might be harder to keep "under control" and as said, wouldn't have any use for Craster, since he doesn't really need a fighter, due to his arrangement with the Crows. It would merely mean a disruptance to the nice little life he's built himself there. So I think even without the White Walkers a son probably wouldn't have a long life at Craster's Keep.  <sep>  Q: Why does Craster give those sacrifices to the White Walkers? A: you also have to consider that Craster was sleeping with his own daughters  Q: Why are the newborn babies needed? A: ew daughters simply mean more workers and more "company", while a son is not really of use to him  Q: Is there a benefit for Caster tho? A: a son could actually be a danger to him if he grows up and decides to revolt against his father's cruelty to his sisters  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened to the sons after being left?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: We don't know. We can't say specifically how time travel works in that universe. But we do know that the Jumanji game itself basically has magical powers and a certain control over reality. So, since it's not deemed important enough to mention in the movie, my best guess is that the magical game made it so everything happened as it happened. Basically the Back to the Future-school of time manipulation where it can affect very specific people in a very specific way.  <sep>  Q: What happens to the Jumanji game module between 1997 and 2017 in this new timeline??
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: We don't know. We can't say specifically how time travel works in that universe. But we do know that the Jumanji game itself basically has magical powers and a certain control over reality. So, since it's not deemed important enough to mention in the movie, my best guess is that the magical game made it so everything happened as it happened. Basically the Back to the Future-school of time manipulation where it can affect very specific people in a very specific way.  <sep>  Q: What happens to the Jumanji game module between 1997 and 2017 in this new timeline?? A: So, since it's not deemed important enough to mention in the movie, my best guess is that the magical game made it so everything happened as it happened  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The four players join the game 20 years later. However who they are how they joined the game is not mentioned in the movie.
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: We don't know. We can't say specifically how time travel works in that universe. But we do know that the Jumanji game itself basically has magical powers and a certain control over reality. So, since it's not deemed important enough to mention in the movie, my best guess is that the magical game made it so everything happened as it happened. Basically the Back to the Future-school of time manipulation where it can affect very specific people in a very specific way.  <sep>  Q: What happens to the Jumanji game module between 1997 and 2017 in this new timeline?? A: So, since it's not deemed important enough to mention in the movie, my best guess is that the magical game made it so everything happened as it happened  Q: The four players join the game 20 years later. However who they are how they joined the game is not mentioned in the movie. A: We can't say specifically how time travel works in that universe. But we do know that the Jumanji game itself basically has magical powers and a certain control over reality  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How would he know where to put the module?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: We don't know. We can't say specifically how time travel works in that universe. But we do know that the Jumanji game itself basically has magical powers and a certain control over reality. So, since it's not deemed important enough to mention in the movie, my best guess is that the magical game made it so everything happened as it happened. Basically the Back to the Future-school of time manipulation where it can affect very specific people in a very specific way.  <sep>  Q: What happens to the Jumanji game module between 1997 and 2017 in this new timeline?? A: So, since it's not deemed important enough to mention in the movie, my best guess is that the magical game made it so everything happened as it happened  Q: The four players join the game 20 years later. However who they are how they joined the game is not mentioned in the movie. A: We can't say specifically how time travel works in that universe. But we do know that the Jumanji game itself basically has magical powers and a certain control over reality  Q: How would he know where to put the module? A: We don't know  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: It would also need to be found by exactly these four people being unexpectedly together at the same time without anyone grabbing the module before
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They were never actually in a relationship! They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped after McGee asked were their relationship was going and Abby was happy just to leave things as they were! They only dated for half of the season! At the end of Season 8, however there is a very tender moment between the two of them and McGee tells Abby 'If something ever happened to you I would..." which indicates that he still has feelings for Abby and worries about her while also giving the hint that he cares and wants to protect her.  <sep>  Q: Did McGee and Abby ever get into a relationship?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They were never actually in a relationship! They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped after McGee asked were their relationship was going and Abby was happy just to leave things as they were! They only dated for half of the season! At the end of Season 8, however there is a very tender moment between the two of them and McGee tells Abby 'If something ever happened to you I would..." which indicates that he still has feelings for Abby and worries about her while also giving the hint that he cares and wants to protect her.  <sep>  Q: Did McGee and Abby ever get into a relationship? A: They were never actually in a relationship  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The series suggests that there is something going on, can you explain more?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They were never actually in a relationship! They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped after McGee asked were their relationship was going and Abby was happy just to leave things as they were! They only dated for half of the season! At the end of Season 8, however there is a very tender moment between the two of them and McGee tells Abby 'If something ever happened to you I would..." which indicates that he still has feelings for Abby and worries about her while also giving the hint that he cares and wants to protect her.  <sep>  Q: Did McGee and Abby ever get into a relationship? A: They were never actually in a relationship  Q: The series suggests that there is something going on, can you explain more? A: They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: In other episodes are they seen to be romantically involved?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They were never actually in a relationship! They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped after McGee asked were their relationship was going and Abby was happy just to leave things as they were! They only dated for half of the season! At the end of Season 8, however there is a very tender moment between the two of them and McGee tells Abby 'If something ever happened to you I would..." which indicates that he still has feelings for Abby and worries about her while also giving the hint that he cares and wants to protect her.  <sep>  Q: Did McGee and Abby ever get into a relationship? A: They were never actually in a relationship  Q: The series suggests that there is something going on, can you explain more? A: They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped  Q: In other episodes are they seen to be romantically involved? A: At the end of Season 8, however there is a very tender moment between the two of them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: The dialogue in NCIS is often suggestive like there is some subtext to their relationship is this true?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: They were never actually in a relationship! They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped after McGee asked were their relationship was going and Abby was happy just to leave things as they were! They only dated for half of the season! At the end of Season 8, however there is a very tender moment between the two of them and McGee tells Abby 'If something ever happened to you I would..." which indicates that he still has feelings for Abby and worries about her while also giving the hint that he cares and wants to protect her.  <sep>  Q: Did McGee and Abby ever get into a relationship? A: They were never actually in a relationship  Q: The series suggests that there is something going on, can you explain more? A: They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What went wrong in their relationship?
Output: No
CONTEXT: They were never actually in a relationship! They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped after McGee asked were their relationship was going and Abby was happy just to leave things as they were! They only dated for half of the season! At the end of Season 8, however there is a very tender moment between the two of them and McGee tells Abby 'If something ever happened to you I would..." which indicates that he still has feelings for Abby and worries about her while also giving the hint that he cares and wants to protect her.  <sep>  Q: Did McGee and Abby ever get into a relationship? A: They were never actually in a relationship  Q: The series suggests that there is something going on, can you explain more? A: They started dating after Sub Rosa (Season 1) then things went pearshaped  Q: In other episodes are they seen to be romantically involved? A: At the end of Season 8, however there is a very tender moment between the two of them  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about NCIS?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It could be that their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class. In the examples you give: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is. The fact the accent is French is unimportant, it's the act of pretense by Thénardier that is being portrayed. Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney, which is analogous to being common and uneducated in British culture. In disparity to this: Jean Valjean (whilst imitating someone of nobler birth) has correct enunciation and a statesmanlike presence. This is indicative of education, and a higher class citizen.  <sep>  Q: Why are there accents in Les Misérables?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It could be that their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class. In the examples you give: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is. The fact the accent is French is unimportant, it's the act of pretense by Thénardier that is being portrayed. Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney, which is analogous to being common and uneducated in British culture. In disparity to this: Jean Valjean (whilst imitating someone of nobler birth) has correct enunciation and a statesmanlike presence. This is indicative of education, and a higher class citizen.  <sep>  Q: Why are there accents in Les Misérables? A: their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How is this expressed in the film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It could be that their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class. In the examples you give: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is. The fact the accent is French is unimportant, it's the act of pretense by Thénardier that is being portrayed. Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney, which is analogous to being common and uneducated in British culture. In disparity to this: Jean Valjean (whilst imitating someone of nobler birth) has correct enunciation and a statesmanlike presence. This is indicative of education, and a higher class citizen.  <sep>  Q: Why are there accents in Les Misérables? A: their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class  Q: How is this expressed in the film? A: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What about the other accents that can be found in the film?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It could be that their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class. In the examples you give: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is. The fact the accent is French is unimportant, it's the act of pretense by Thénardier that is being portrayed. Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney, which is analogous to being common and uneducated in British culture. In disparity to this: Jean Valjean (whilst imitating someone of nobler birth) has correct enunciation and a statesmanlike presence. This is indicative of education, and a higher class citizen.  <sep>  Q: Why are there accents in Les Misérables? A: their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class  Q: How is this expressed in the film? A: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is  Q: What about the other accents that can be found in the film? A: Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Are these actors own accents that they bring to the film or is it intentional?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: It could be that their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class. In the examples you give: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is. The fact the accent is French is unimportant, it's the act of pretense by Thénardier that is being portrayed. Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney, which is analogous to being common and uneducated in British culture. In disparity to this: Jean Valjean (whilst imitating someone of nobler birth) has correct enunciation and a statesmanlike presence. This is indicative of education, and a higher class citizen.  <sep>  Q: Why are there accents in Les Misérables? A: their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class  Q: How is this expressed in the film? A: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is  Q: What about the other accents that can be found in the film? A: Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney  Q: Are these actors own accents that they bring to the film or is it intentional? A: fake  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you tell me anything else about Les Mis?
Output: No
CONTEXT: It could be that their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class. In the examples you give: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is. The fact the accent is French is unimportant, it's the act of pretense by Thénardier that is being portrayed. Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney, which is analogous to being common and uneducated in British culture. In disparity to this: Jean Valjean (whilst imitating someone of nobler birth) has correct enunciation and a statesmanlike presence. This is indicative of education, and a higher class citizen.  <sep>  Q: Why are there accents in Les Misérables? A: their accents are meant as indicators to their personality and class  Q: How is this expressed in the film? A: Thénardier adopts a 'fake' french accent, to attempt to pass himself off as more sophisticated than he is  Q: What about the other accents that can be found in the film? A: Gavroche is an urchin, perhaps the bottom rung of the lowest class in society. His accent is thick cockney  Q: Are these actors own accents that they bring to the film or is it intentional? A: fake  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it true that the book was originally written in French?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I don't have official source or script to draw from. However, my read on that scene is that they were waiting for the humans. The whole nest seems to be in a sort of button-up-and-fortify mode. The most the Vikings sniff of a dragon is the tail that gets whisked out of sight. This is more than likely intentional - note that the eerie sound that continues while the Vikings land and fortify continues right up until they punch the hole. It's a very similar sound to the sound the other Alpha dragons make in the second movie, while exerting dominance or control. The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right. That all seems to go out the window when Stoick signals a fireball launched in. Whether that was just an agressive surprise, or read as some kind of direct challenge, I couldn't say for sure. The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way as that Alpha decides to muscle out and deal with this personally.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the dragons leave their lair earlier?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't have official source or script to draw from. However, my read on that scene is that they were waiting for the humans. The whole nest seems to be in a sort of button-up-and-fortify mode. The most the Vikings sniff of a dragon is the tail that gets whisked out of sight. This is more than likely intentional - note that the eerie sound that continues while the Vikings land and fortify continues right up until they punch the hole. It's a very similar sound to the sound the other Alpha dragons make in the second movie, while exerting dominance or control. The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right. That all seems to go out the window when Stoick signals a fireball launched in. Whether that was just an agressive surprise, or read as some kind of direct challenge, I couldn't say for sure. The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way as that Alpha decides to muscle out and deal with this personally.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the dragons leave their lair earlier? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What is the Alpha and how is it different to the other dragons?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't have official source or script to draw from. However, my read on that scene is that they were waiting for the humans. The whole nest seems to be in a sort of button-up-and-fortify mode. The most the Vikings sniff of a dragon is the tail that gets whisked out of sight. This is more than likely intentional - note that the eerie sound that continues while the Vikings land and fortify continues right up until they punch the hole. It's a very similar sound to the sound the other Alpha dragons make in the second movie, while exerting dominance or control. The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right. That all seems to go out the window when Stoick signals a fireball launched in. Whether that was just an agressive surprise, or read as some kind of direct challenge, I couldn't say for sure. The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way as that Alpha decides to muscle out and deal with this personally.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the dragons leave their lair earlier? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard  Q: What is the Alpha and how is it different to the other dragons? A: exerting dominance or control  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How do the Alpha dragons exert dominance or control?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't have official source or script to draw from. However, my read on that scene is that they were waiting for the humans. The whole nest seems to be in a sort of button-up-and-fortify mode. The most the Vikings sniff of a dragon is the tail that gets whisked out of sight. This is more than likely intentional - note that the eerie sound that continues while the Vikings land and fortify continues right up until they punch the hole. It's a very similar sound to the sound the other Alpha dragons make in the second movie, while exerting dominance or control. The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right. That all seems to go out the window when Stoick signals a fireball launched in. Whether that was just an agressive surprise, or read as some kind of direct challenge, I couldn't say for sure. The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way as that Alpha decides to muscle out and deal with this personally.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the dragons leave their lair earlier? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard  Q: What is the Alpha and how is it different to the other dragons? A: exerting dominance or control  Q: How do the Alpha dragons exert dominance or control? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What else can you tell me about the dragons or their lair?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't have official source or script to draw from. However, my read on that scene is that they were waiting for the humans. The whole nest seems to be in a sort of button-up-and-fortify mode. The most the Vikings sniff of a dragon is the tail that gets whisked out of sight. This is more than likely intentional - note that the eerie sound that continues while the Vikings land and fortify continues right up until they punch the hole. It's a very similar sound to the sound the other Alpha dragons make in the second movie, while exerting dominance or control. The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right. That all seems to go out the window when Stoick signals a fireball launched in. Whether that was just an agressive surprise, or read as some kind of direct challenge, I couldn't say for sure. The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way as that Alpha decides to muscle out and deal with this personally.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the dragons leave their lair earlier? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard  Q: What is the Alpha and how is it different to the other dragons? A: exerting dominance or control  Q: How do the Alpha dragons exert dominance or control? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right  Q: What else can you tell me about the dragons or their lair? A: The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: I was wondering if the dragons lost their friends?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't have official source or script to draw from. However, my read on that scene is that they were waiting for the humans. The whole nest seems to be in a sort of button-up-and-fortify mode. The most the Vikings sniff of a dragon is the tail that gets whisked out of sight. This is more than likely intentional - note that the eerie sound that continues while the Vikings land and fortify continues right up until they punch the hole. It's a very similar sound to the sound the other Alpha dragons make in the second movie, while exerting dominance or control. The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right. That all seems to go out the window when Stoick signals a fireball launched in. Whether that was just an agressive surprise, or read as some kind of direct challenge, I couldn't say for sure. The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way as that Alpha decides to muscle out and deal with this personally.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the dragons leave their lair earlier? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard  Q: What is the Alpha and how is it different to the other dragons? A: exerting dominance or control  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is it true that the queen kept dragons as prisoners?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I don't have official source or script to draw from. However, my read on that scene is that they were waiting for the humans. The whole nest seems to be in a sort of button-up-and-fortify mode. The most the Vikings sniff of a dragon is the tail that gets whisked out of sight. This is more than likely intentional - note that the eerie sound that continues while the Vikings land and fortify continues right up until they punch the hole. It's a very similar sound to the sound the other Alpha dragons make in the second movie, while exerting dominance or control. The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right. That all seems to go out the window when Stoick signals a fireball launched in. Whether that was just an agressive surprise, or read as some kind of direct challenge, I couldn't say for sure. The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way as that Alpha decides to muscle out and deal with this personally.  <sep>  Q: Why didn't the dragons leave their lair earlier? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard  Q: What is the Alpha and how is it different to the other dragons? A: exerting dominance or control  Q: How do the Alpha dragons exert dominance or control? A: The Alpha is holding it's nest on tight guard, possibly to pounce once it feels right  Q: What else can you tell me about the dragons or their lair? A: The dragons in the tunnel though, didn't move until that moment, and it mostly seems to be an action of I'm-getting-the-heck-out-of-the-way  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can you tell me anything else about the film?
Output: No
CONTEXT: In reality people often do strange or unusual things when they suffer a traumatic, and in Mike's case, a mortal injury. Their mind continues to work as it does and they realize that they need to DO something. However, after a short period of time, their injury overcomes their adrenaline rush and they are forced to halt whatever it is that they are doing. In Mike's case, being a trained professional, he would have tried to flee since he knew that he was wounded and that he was unable to defend himself. It seemed though that his body wouldn't allow him to go much further than it did and he simply sat down a short distance from the car where he'd been shot. When this occurred, he probably realized that his wound was a mortal one and he simply resigned himself to his fate. There's also the reality which may have occurred to Mike that there was no place for him to go. Even if Walt had called an ambulance and they arrived before he bled to death, he would have been arrested and gone on trial for at least the distribution of the money to his criminal conspirators if not been tried along with them for the events which occurred during the Fring drug organization. Sitting by a river and dying there may have been a far more pleasant option for him than spending the remainder of his adult life in prison.  <sep>  Q: Why did Mike get out of the car after being shot?
Output: Yes